At the US border
Jamon Camisso
jamon.camisso-H217xnMUJC0sA/PxXw9srA at public.gmane.org
Tue Oct 3 01:56:05 UTC 2006
JoeHill wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:42:21 -0400
> Jamon Camisso got an infinite number of monkeys to type out:
>
>> IANAL... but ethical/moral and legal are in this case mutually
>> exclusive. It is illegal in *some* places to use libdvdcss2 or whatever
>> package you use, but it is not unethical. Not to imply that it is
>> ethical to circumvent copy protection, only that ethics don't really
>> enter into it here.
>
> ...a certain Richard Stallman might disagree with you... ;)
>
> That was the direction I was coming from, or intended to (I'm even less a lawyer
> than you, to be sure, so I'm probably not framing this right). Neither our
> sense of 'ethics' or 'law' have yet caught up to the technology that we
> possess, so that one's sense of right and wrong never seems to quite cover all
> the angles.
I agree with you 100% there. It's too bad that as new cases come up,
catching up means framing said new technology in terms of an older one
where law and ethics are concerned. It seems that from an ethical point
of view, and in (admittedly) overly general terms, law or ethics are
applied and interpreted in a utilitarian fashion with business interests
always at the fore, whereas Stallman's ethics seem based more around
duty and a priori morality. The former is much easier to work with in a
court because it is easily quantifiable, in terms of legal precedents,
and simple dollars and cents cost/benefit analyses. The latter is
inherently vague and subjective where the courts are concerned (IMO) and
the benefits are much more intangible on the whole.
The GPL is a brilliant piece of work for the simple fact that it bridges
Stallman's ethics/ideology with our modern legal system. From an ethical
point of view (utilitarian), the GPL is a pragmatically necessary thing,
used to "resist the system." Paradoxically, it is also something that in
Stallman's ethical world (as I understand it) should not exist, in that
there should be no need for a such a descriptive set of ethics to begin
with if only people were to follow the seemingly (Stallman) self-evident
truth that restricting software is wrong. whew!
> Some people might say that to use *any* closed or restricted software, whether
> it was intended to be free or not, is unethical because, as Stallman put it:
>
> "A non-free program is a predatory social system that keeps people in a state
> of domination and division, and uses the spoils to dominate more. It may seem
> like a profitable option to become one of the emperor's lieutenants, but
> ultimately the ethical thing to do is to resist the system and put an end to
> it."
>
> From my point of view at least, the software which plays DVD's was never
> intended to be 'free' (ie. open), and so to use it is to falter, ethically
> speaking, at least as far as Stallman would define it, no? I know, Stallman
> would say you shouldn't be buying the DVD in the first place or something crazy
> like that :P
Hmm you make an interesting point. I think that in the particular case
of libdvdcss Stallman would have to agree (according to the statement
above), that to use the software, since it is licensed under the GPL
would be very much and ethical action. I too agree then that ethics *do*
come into play given the above. In the same sense that I describe the
practicality of the GPL above that is. To use libdvdcss is to
steadfastly adhere to the principle Stallman outlines of resisting the
system that restricts users' use of software. Taken to the extreme, you
do point out that Stallman might, as a consequence of his stance, have
to end up living under a rock for his principles, though in not so many
words of course ;) He'd do it too I bet!
> Personally, *I* don't believe that using a pirated copy of Photoshop is anywhere
> near the same as using libdvdcss (ethically speaking), but again, would
> everyone see it the same way? I don't know. I've run into people who won't load
> M$ fonts on their Linux box because, technically, although freely available, the
> licensing is restricted and therefore 'bad', and they consider it unethical to
> use them.
No one sees it the same way of course. If we did, we'd likely spend more
time debating the relative merits of said fonts than just doing whatever
work we need to do in the first place, with or without them. It might
make things more just in a very long term, but as to the tangible
benefits of such "extreme" cases, they are not worth it *to me*. I do
not dispute the value of such ideologues as those who refuse to taint
their system, as we absolutely need them to advocate freedom etc. for
software, over and above simply using GPL for new project, but look at
what happened (briefly?) to the kororaa project when such an extreme
position was taken earlier this summer:
http://kororaa.org/index.php?entry=entry060512-160752
I just want to watch my movies and play my games with a minimum amount
of fuss. From a very practical point of view, switching to GNU/Linux was
enough of a switch in ideological and ethical terms that I don't want to
have to worry about smaller issues like font licenses or binary drivers
causing kernel taint.
Which is more ethical: switching new users over to GNU/Linux, with said
large gain in ethical and ideological awareness across as large a body
of people as possible (hypothesized on my part based on those I've
converted); or spending all my time ensuring my actions are in
accordance with an extremely rigid set of ethics that prevent me from
spending time converting potential users? No easy answer there, though I
obviously opt for the first.
In Stallman's world, I ought not to have to even entertain either
possibility though...
Much fun reading and writing this, thanks :)
Jamon
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
More information about the Legacy
mailing list